I have to admit that I look forward to hearing NDP Foreign Affairs Critic speak because she has an ability to spout some serious gems. Check out the Tuesday CBC Politics at the 32 minute mark.
...should we commit for another two years?MP McDonough: "I think we should have a full discussion about what it is we are committing to and it should include making a real assessment of what is the situation now. It's clear that after four years of this search and kill, aggressive combat approach there is an increase in the insecurity, an increase in the number of Taliban and I think serious questions about where this - this is going to get us to anything we could remotely call peace. We need to think, rebalance and commit more on the diplomatic side, peace building side and on the geniune development side. We've got 80% of that economy dependent on illicit drugs, poppies."
Where to begin? There is just so much in that one little paragraph. Help me if I miss any.
1) "Full Discussion": This a pull back position for the NDP who have been demanding on vote on Afghanistan for months. As recently as March 20th Ms. McDonough was quoted "There are increasing numbers of Afghans who are being killed, and I think we need to have a full debate and a vote on how we can best ensure that our troops have an achievable mission and that the people of Afghanistan are best served by the contribution we make." Similar to the above statement except for one key word - vote. They seem to be backing away from that one.
2) "search and kill, aggressive combat approach": Because you should never search out and kill an enemy who attacked an ally and killed Canadians in the process. What should we do? We'll get to that.
3) " increase in the number of Taliban". Yeah, right! There are more Taliban now in Afghanistan than when they ran the country with a brutal dictatorship. Whatever.
4) "going to get us to anything we could remotely call peace": Because Afghanistan was such a peaceful place before 2002. It is not like that had terrorist training camps or no respect for human rights or they forced women to where full body cover. Don't get me started but Afghanistan was about as far away from peace as you can get.
5) "commit more on the diplomatic side": Should sit down and have tea with the Taliban? Why don't we ask Sammy bin Laden over for milk and cookies while we are at it.
6) "We've got 80% of that economy dependent on illicit drugs, poppies." Score one for Ms. McDonough on that one because that part is unfortunate. But if the choice is no opium with a side of Taliban or no Taliban with a side of opium I'll take combo #2.
Comments (8)
Greg, do you think O’Connor will answer the same questions he put to the Liberals last year, this time? Or will it just be more of the same “You don’t support the troops”?
Posted by Greg | May 16, 2006 7:27 PM
Posted on May 16, 2006 19:27
It is a long debate so I would advice a bit more complexity ;)
Posted by Greg Staples | May 16, 2006 7:44 PM
Posted on May 16, 2006 19:44
Greg I picked up on the same thing and was outraged… what kind of bull is she spewing?
More taliban??? Crike gimme a break
Posted by Riley Hennessey | May 16, 2006 8:30 PM
Posted on May 16, 2006 20:30
If Ms. McDonough believes that Canada should “commit more on the diplomatic side” why doesn’t she volunteer her name for the job, since she’s such an expert on military AND diplomatic issues?
Posted by Gabby in QC | May 16, 2006 8:48 PM
Posted on May 16, 2006 20:48
On point #3: There are not more Taliban. The difference is that the NATO mission calls for increased penetration and control of Afghanistan’s remote regions. Our Canadian forces have been the first to do in country missions in the Kandahar area. Up until now, most NATO forces remained close to Kandahar or Kabul… the whole mission now is to extend and expand the rule of law outward from these two regions. Only the Americans have been launching missions into the frontier regions.
That is where Canadians run into Taliban… who have been there all along. Only now, they are being forced out, and forced to fight and die. The NDP are intellectually and philosophically incapable of having any reasonable input into this debate. They are, after all, hippies in suits.
Posted by Debris Trail | May 16, 2006 11:56 PM
Posted on May 16, 2006 23:56
about point # 2:
Perhaps the NDP would prefer to arm our soldiers with paint-ball guns so that we could make it a game.
Posted by Paul MacPhail | May 17, 2006 2:37 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 14:37
Well, if it is going to be a game, I say hockey and send the womens team. That will be a double win
Posted by capt joe | May 17, 2006 4:08 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 16:08
Really,all you need to know about the mentality of some members of parliament on this issue is this.Anything war or war related is anathema to NDP idealogy.To whit..Olivia Chow scoffing at the conservative member in the dabate tonight..”the Taliban are watching!!” she parrotted in response to the statement that the lack of NDP support would hurt our troops and give support to the enemy..Does this woman not know that while the Talibans head is stuck in the (remote ) past,their technological pursuits are all 21st century…they ARE watching,and they are taking notes.They will see a country so smug and satisfied,not to mention selfish and ignorant of the world situation .This woman ,and the rest of her cohorts are dangerous,not just to themselves,but the very safety of our country.Fight them over there boys,or sure as God Made little green apples they will bring their unique view of life to our shores..Who will they blame then?
Posted by kursk | May 17, 2006 10:05 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 22:05